Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why Does Ireland Like Being Told How to Live - Ireland & the EU
Options
Comments
-
Black Swan wrote: »The 50th State of Hawaii, the state where the current US President Obama was born: King Kamehameha I ruled and united the islands in the early 1800's as the Kingdom of Hawaii.
I stand corrected, but you take my point.0 -
gdkaufmann wrote: »Claire,
The U.S. states (except Texas freeing itself from Mexico) never fought for independence and then said, "hey lets let someone else rule us".
No state was ever a soveriegn nation. The U.S. is a collection of states with a common history of independence, and within to a large degree a common culture. The EU is a collection of sovereign nations with (in some cases) centuries of self-rule, and sovereign governance that ha now been only partially subsumed to the EU. Structurally and emotionally it's a very different thing from the U.S.
There's a reason that The European Common Bank is trying to be more like the U.S. Federal Reserve - a comon currency across states with a common culture and history is far easier to adopt and manage than doing it across national/cultural boundaries.
The ECB is quite different from the Fed. It just keeps deluding itself. It can't work without adopting the more philosophical aspects of e pluribus unum.0 -
gdkaufmann wrote: »I stand corrected, but you take my point.
Texas was also an independent country (The Republic of Texas) between 1836 and 1846, before joining the USA.
After independence, the original 13 colonies were joined by the articles of confederation from 1781, which was a very weak central government, and the states were de facto independent. It wasn't until the current US constitution was ratified in 1789 that the federal government had the power to overrule the states, a power voluntarily given by each state, but not without controversy.0 -
The member states of the EU as sovereign nations are perfectly free to do whatever we want with our sovereignty.
That includes choosing to exercise our sovereignty on a mutually agreeable joint basis within the EU (or other international bodies).
We choose to do this because our mutual belief is that by acting collectively as a Union we will benefit far more on a medium to long term basis than we would by acting individually in the short term.
We "exercise our sovereignty" when we choose to do so as is our sovereign right.0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »The ECB is quite different from the Fed. It just keeps deluding itself. It can't work without adopting the more philosophical aspects of e pluribus unum.
Yes, the ECB is quite different from the Fed. But, despite being structurally and philosphically incapable of acting like the Fed, it still seeks to implement many of the same fiscal controls as the Fed. Sadly, IMO it'll never work because , while they work tenuously at times in a federation of united states (with 200+ years of ironing out the wrinkles), it would be too cumbersome in a federation of nation states.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
gdkaufmann wrote: »Yes, the ECB is quite different from the Fed. But, despite being structurally and philosphically incapable of acting like the Fed, it still seeks to implement many of the same fiscal controls as the Fed. Sadly, IMO it'll never work because , while they work tenuously at times in a federation of united states (with 200+ years of making ironing out the wrinkles), it would be too cumbersome in a federation of nation states.
It will never work because Germans don't want to pay for Greeks. NY state has far more tax output than it does input into and from the Feds. Other states are the inverse. And that is why it will never ever work in Europe because deep down, or not that deep down, national kinship is alive in Europe, and they haven't really formed a European identity the way Americans have.
The USnhas its own currency, whereas these nation states do not. They use the Euro and therefore have lost a lot of sovereignty by having no control over their currency. What's that famous quote from Rothschild?0 -
Claire, Yes. That's exactly what I was trying to say. You were far more elequent about it than I.0
-
clairefontaine wrote: »It will never work because Germans don't want to pay for Greeks. NY state has far more tax output than it does input into and from the Feds. Other states are the inverse. And that is why it will never ever work in Europe because deep down, or not that deep down, national kinship is alive in Europe, and they haven't really formed a European identity the way Americans have.
The USnhas its own currency, whereas these nation states do not. They use the Euro and therefore have lost a lot of sovereignty by having no control over their currency. What's that famous quote from Rothschild?
The Germans don't want to pay for the Greeks because they believe it will be a huge money pit and the Greeks will not change. Germany, France the UK have been happily paying for the poorer neighbours for years, the deal with Europe is the richer nations pay but the poorer nations promise to do their best to improve. For something that will never work, its heading to 60 plus years, it has increased European wealth from a destroyed continent, it is the longest period of peace in Europe ever and more and more countries want to join how is that equal to it will never work, it is working.
Also comparing the US to the EU is comparing apples with oranges, for one the EU has not gone the federal route, the EU encourages nations to retain nation status, in the EU a Roe v Wade decision is not possible for example. The US is by and large a country of immigrants most people in the EU can trace their ancestry back generations in the same area, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/theres-no-place-like-home-says-son-of-cheddar-man-1271817.html in the US any person who could possibly trace DNA back 9000 years has been forcefully removed from their lands.
BTW if someone thinks the EU is a nut job, look at Federal decisions like probation, the war on drugs, huge military spending and on and on.
The EU is complex, but which has vastly improved the lives of millions of people in the EU. It is also worth remembering that the US was born out of revolution, while the EU was born out of the worst war in European history. Has the EU issues yes, but has it been a success in my opinion yes.0 -
I think that quote was: "Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws." ~ Mayer Amschel Rothschildclairefontaine wrote: »The USnhas its own currency, whereas these nation states do not. They use the Euro and therefore have lost a lot of sovereignty by having no control over their currency. What's that famous quote from Rothschild?
http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-money-masters/famous-quotations-on-banking/
That's effectively the power the banking/financial industry has over government/politics/society, since it is private banks that create money, and (with powerful players in finance) who get to set the terms on countries sovereign debts.0 -
Advertisement
-
clairefontaine wrote: »It will never work because Germans don't want to pay for Greeks. NY state has far more tax output than it does input into and from the Feds. Other states are the inverse.
Texans don't send money to fund the shortfall in the Californian budget.
Why therefore should the Germans be expected to send money to fund the shortfall in ours?
It is the responsibility of each state in the USA to fund its own state budget just as it is the responsibility of each member state of the EU to fund their respective budget.clairefontaine wrote: »The USnhas its own currency, whereas these nation states do not. They use the Euro and therefore have lost a lot of sovereignty by having no control over their currency. What's that famous quote from Rothschild?
Ammh, no. The member states of the EU choose to exercise their sovereignty through a common set of institutions and in pursuit of a common set of agreed policies. This is entirely voluntary on the part of each member state. You obviously don't agree with them doing so but it remains their perogative to exercise their sovereignty on a joint basis.0 -
Indeed, the Texans don't fund shortfalls in California's budget - the federal government uses national debt to fund deficit spending throughout the whole of the US, including California, instead.Texans don't send money to fund the shortfall in the Californian budget.
Why therefore should the Germans be expected to send money to fund the shortfall in ours?
Precisely the same way that with centralized EU debt, used to fund stimulus spending throughout Europe, the Germans would not be paying for Irelands shortfalls.0 -
Recently, I've looked at fluoride being one of the reasons the Irish people have not rebelled against its government to the extent Greece, Spain and Portugal have.
Most people know by now that fluoride is not good for your teeth. Quebec passed a law a few years ago banning fluoridation because the children there actually had MORE cavities than children in Ontario, who didn't have fluoridated water supplies. Fluoride being good for your teeth is a myth. If it was actually good, why doesn't Ireland not have the best teeth in Europe? Ireland is the ONLY country in europe with widespread fluoridation of water supplies. Why does it say on the side of toothpaste tubes to go to the emergency room if you only ingest a pea-sized amount?
Many health professionals have said that fluoride is harmful to human health, especially to the nervous system. http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/
I have read that the Nazis first used fluoride in water supplies as a method of mass mind control and to make the population more docile. I have no sources for this but I think there is too many coincidences with Ireland that suggest fluoride is harmful to our health. Also, there is plenty of evidence that proves that Ireland suffers from certain diseases more so than other countries, down-syndrome being one of them I think.
I know that's a bit off topic for politics, but still, if fluoride actually makes people more docile (not directly, but as a knock on effect from IQ degradation), then could it be the reason why Irish people have been so non-resistant to austerity and control?0 -
Recently, I've looked at fluoride being one of the reasons the Irish people have not rebelled against its government to the extent Greece, Spain and Portugal have.
Most people know by now that fluoride is not good for your teeth. Quebec passed a law a few years ago banning fluoridation because the children there actually had MORE cavities than children in Ontario, who didn't have fluoridated water supplies. Fluoride being good for your teeth is a myth. If it was actually good, why doesn't Ireland not have the best teeth in Europe? Ireland is the ONLY country in europe with widespread fluoridation of water supplies. Why does it say on the side of toothpaste tubes to go to the emergency room if you only ingest a pea-sized amount?
Many health professionals have said that fluoride is harmful to human health, especially to the nervous system. http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/
I have read that the Nazis first used fluoride in water supplies as a method of mass mind control and to make the population more docile. I have no sources for this but I think there is too many coincidences with Ireland that suggest fluoride is harmful to our health. Also, there is plenty of evidence that proves that Ireland suffers from certain diseases more so than other countries, down-syndrome being one of them I think.
I know that's a bit off topic for politics, but still, if fluoride actually makes people more docile (not directly, but as a knock on effect from IQ degradation), then could it be the reason why Irish people have been so non-resistant to austerity and control?
There are plenty of threads about fluoride in the conspiracy theory forum .0 -
Texans don't send money to fund the shortfall in the Californian budget.
Why therefore should the Germans be expected to send money to fund the shortfall in ours?
It is the responsibility of each state in the USA to fund its own state budget just as it is the responsibility of each member state of the EU to fund their respective budget.
Ammh, no. The member states of the EU choose to exercise their sovereignty through a common set of institutions and in pursuit of a common set of agreed policies. This is entirely voluntary on the part of each member state. You obviously don't agree with them doing so but it remains their perogative to exercise their sovereignty on a joint basis.
I haven't seen the spreadsheets to know specifically who funds what. The fed collects taxes and redistributes them to the other states. Some take more than Others, some give more than others. But it's federal money and they do what they want with it. States don't owe each other money.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Indeed, the Texans don't fund shortfalls in California's budget - the federal government uses national debt to fund deficit spending throughout the whole of the US, including California, instead.
Precisely the same way that with centralized EU debt, used to fund stimulus spending throughout Europe, the Germans would not be paying for Irelands shortfalls.
There is the small matter of their being no democratic majority in favour of such stimulus spending in the EU.
I appreciate you don't agree with that but such is democracy.0 -
clairefontaine wrote: »I haven't seen the spreadsheets to know specifically who funds what. The fed collects taxes and redistributes them to the other states. Some take more than Others, some give more than others. But it's federal money and they do what they want with it.
And the EU does precisely that also although on a much smaller scale as it is set up to do less (It is also a reflection on how much the US Federal government has massively expanded over the years particularly in the last century).clairefontaine wrote: »States don't owe each other money.
Apart from a small amount of bilateral loans that is also the case in the EU (e.g. the UK and Swedish loans to us). The EU does however do EU level emergency loan funds such as the ESM. To the best of my knowledge that isn't the case in the US which for a state in a budgetary crisis means the state is left totally without such outside funding options - meaning the choice for the state is absolutely massive austerity or outright bankruptcy.0 -
Even though we were never given any such vote regarding stimulus, I see you agree that with centralized EU debt, Germany would not be paying for Irish shortfalls - exactly the way states in the US do not.There is the small matter of their being no democratic majority in favour of such stimulus spending in the EU.
I appreciate you don't agree with that but such is democracy.0 -
-
gdkaufmann wrote: »No, it really doesn't. Frankly, it's such a horrendously bad piece of writing that I don't know that anything the author writes on the subject can be credibly believed. He doesn't seem to know what he's saying.
For example, the author writes: "Ireland, Greece, Lithuania, and Finland were among the four nations to abstain with Britain among eight nations which voted against the ban."
Does that mean there are actually five countries that abstained (those four and Britain)? Were they among the four, or are they the four? Is Britain part of the abstainers, or part of the eight who voted against it? The author is all over the place in this one, fairly crucial, sentence.
As a professional writer, I would be embarrassed to have that sentence out there under my name. And, no, I didn't read the rest of the article. Why bother?
"Ireland, Greece, Lithuania, and Finland were among the four nations to abstain with Britain among eight nations which voted against the ban."
Really? Can you explain grammatically where the writer has erred? It seems very clear to me.
I do see you don't like reading articles that disagree with your worldview.0 -
Advertisement
-
KyussBishop wrote: »Even though we were never given any such vote regarding stimulus,
We had elections to the European Parliament within a year of the crisis starting (and will have within a year again). In those elections the electorate returned the most "right wing" parliament in years with the EPP gaining massively. That's also was the case in most member states as the respective EPP domestic parties control the Premierships of many (most?) member states.
The EPP is the European party of Merkel, Sarkozy and Kenny, hence we have gotten (largely) EPP conservative measures - "Merkel-ite" ones if you will.
In none of the elections have the electorate been demanding an EU level massive stimulus package nor are the major parties on either left or right interested in offering one.
There is support for "minor" targeted investment packages (R&D) such as has been recently approved and from the left support for SOME further expansion on that but that's it.
There is no mainstream political support for massive EU level stimulus and that should clearly tell you how likely the electorate are to vote for it.0 -
Again, that is not a vote giving the option of stimulus. In the US, the elected government is spying on its people and the world on a massive unprecedented scale; does this mean the majority of the US people approve of this? No - anyone who has even the briefest idea of politics, knows that when a government does something, that does not automatically mean their actions are representative of the majority of the population.We had elections to the European Parliament within a year of the crisis starting (and will have within a year again). In those elections the electorate returned the most "right wing" parliament in years with the EPP gaining massively. That's also was the case in most member states as the respective EPP domestic parties control the Premierships of many (most?) member states.
The EPP is the European party of Merkel, Sarkozy and Kenny, hence we have gotten (largely) EPP conservative measures - "Merkel-ite" ones if you will.
In none of the elections have the electorate been demanding an EU level massive stimulus package nor are the major parties on either left or right interested in offering one.
There is support for "minor" targeted investment packages (R&D) such as has been recently approved and from the left support for SOME further expansion on that but that's it.
There is no mainstream political support for massive EU level stimulus and that should clearly tell you how likely the electorate are to vote for it.0 -
"Ireland, Greece, Lithuania, and Finland were among the four nations to abstain with Britain among eight nations which voted against the ban."
Really? Can you explain grammatically where the writer has erred? It seems very clear to me.
I do see you don't like reading articles that disagree with your worldview.
It's not "grammatically" incorrect. The word usage is faulty. A list of four nations cannot be "among" the four nations that abstained. If they all abstained, thrn they "are" the four nations that abstained. Otherwise the writer's numbers are wrong.
And if they are "with" Britain, does that mean that Britain is an abstainer also (in which case there are actually five abstainers), or are the four abstainers, somehow counted with Britain as part of the eight who voted against it.
But, actually, the writer has probably used "among" correctly in this second sentence in meaning that Britain is one amongst seven others that comprise the eight. But, even in that eventuality, the writer has used "among" twice in the same sentence, which is generally considered poor form. And, they've used it two different ways ("among meaning all members of a group; and "among" meaning one amongst others)
The problem is not the grammar, but the cavalier use of "among" and "with".
Hope that helps.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »Again, that is not a vote giving the option of stimulus.
An election is a "marketplace" in which people can present their ideas, champion them and choose from among the competiting ideas.
If no one is either championing an idea or demanding it that should tell you how much support it has.
There is no obligation on anyone to turn elections into a series of referenda on all ideas from the extreme left's ideas through to the extreme right's ideas just because people who support a particular idea feel it beneath them to go to the "marketplace" and compete like everyone else.KyussBishop wrote: »anyone who has even the briefest idea of politics, knows that when a government does something, that does not automatically mean their actions are representative of the majority of the population.
In a representative democracy the decisions of a Parliament are always representative of a majority of the population. That is the basis of representative democracy.
It is a matter of "bums on seats" as to what decisions get made. Hence the people need to choose their representatives carefully. Should they fail to do so, they'll get a parliament HIGHLY representative of the people's carelessness and stupidity.0 -
gdkaufmann wrote: »It's not "grammatically" incorrect.
Hope that helps.
It does indeed. It reveals you to be someone who will argue your "point" regardless of the facts and willfully refuses any information or data that contradicts your worldview.
The one thing that we can agree on is this:
"And, no, I didn't read the rest of the article. Why bother"
I shall employ exactly that policy with regard to your future posts. Why bother indeed.0 -
You are trying to bait-and-switch here, by pretending we were talking about whether government is representative of the people, which we are not talking about.An election is a "marketplace" in which people can present their ideas, champion them and choose from among the competiting ideas.
If no one is either championing an idea or demanding it that should tell you how much support it has.
There is no obligation on anyone to turn elections into a series of referenda on all ideas from the extreme left's ideas through to the extreme right's ideas just because people who support a particular idea feel it beneath them to go to the "marketplace" and compete like everyone else.
In a representative democracy the decisions of a Parliament are always representative of a majority of the population. That is the basis of representative democracy.
It is a matter of "bums on seats" as to what decisions get made. Hence the people need to choose their representatives carefully. Should they fail to do so, they'll get a parliament HIGHLY representative of the people's carelessness and stupidity.
We are talking about, whether the majority of the people, agree with a particular action (or inaction) on the part of government (which is very easy to mix up with describing it as 'representative' - which is very obviously not the semantically-pedantic meaning I intended). Unless you find a poll which directly asks the people, there is very little you can say on this.
If you think that just becase a government does (or does not) do something, that that specific action/inaction is something the majority of the people agree with, just because that is what government does (or does not) do, then your political views are heavily divorced from reality, and de-facto mean that government is always right no matter what it does, because the majority of the people always agree with their actions.
That is one of the most absurd and facially dishonest (not to mention completely authoritarian) arguments, that can be made about government and politics in general.0 -
It does indeed. It reveals you to be someone who will argue your "point" regardless of the facts and willfully refuses any information or data that contradicts your worldview.
The one thing that we can agree on is this:
"And, no, I didn't read the rest of the article. Why bother"
I shall employ exactly that policy with regard to your future posts. Why bother indeed.
Micosoft
Cool.0 -
We seem to have it engrained in us, to take a pat on the back, and a ruffle of the hair. As long as we get those, we're happy.
We're, sadly, not a nation of leaders.0 -
KyussBishop wrote: »You are trying to bait-and-switch here, by pretending we were talking about whether government is representative of the people, which we are not talking about.
We are talking about, whether the majority of the people, agree with a particular action (or inaction) on the part of government (which is very easy to mix up with describing it as 'representative' - which is very obviously not the semantically-pedantic meaning I intended). Unless you find a poll which directly asks the people, there is very little you can say on this.
Nonsense. Unless there is clear evidence that people favour an idea as demonstrated by their willingness to vote for it, we do not need to go around postulating that there is majority support for any idea (including your favoured ones).
There is absolutely no need, for instance, to hold referenda - at tax-payer's expense - on whether or not the people would like to see the re-introduction of slavery or the legalistaion of cannibalism.
This imaginary "silent majority" in favour of either those policies or your favoured ones need to actually organise themselves to campaign for their favoured policies and cast their ballots in favour of candidates that support them to demonstrate they actually have majority support IN REALITY before the political system should respond to their demands.
If they can't manage that much that is a very clear indication about the level of popular support these theoretical "silent majorities" actually command.KyussBishop wrote: »If you think that just becase a government does (or does not) do something, that that specific action/inaction is something the majority of the people agree with, just because that is what government does (or does not) do, then your political views are heavily divorced from reality, and de-facto mean that government is always right no matter what it does, because the majority of the people always agree with their actions.
That is one of the most absurd and facially dishonest (not to mention completely authoritarian) arguments, that can be made about government and politics in general.
I refer to Parliament(s) in my posts - not Governments - as it is up to Parliament(s) to figure out "what the people want" means in practise and to both pass legislation accordingly and to hold their government(s) to account for their actions and inactions.
Just because your favoured ideas can't make it past the starting post at the political races, doesn't mean we need to abolish representative democracy and resort to an endless stream of referenda on the minutae of legislation
If you believe your favoured ideas do in fact command majority support there is an election to the European Parliament coming up within a year and one to to Oireachtas in perhaps two year time.
You have plenty of time to get organised for either of those elections. I look forward to you demonstrating the existence of this majority in favour of your policies and will accept the decision of the electorate on this.0 -
Advertisement
-
You were the one who tried to pin a view on the majority, "There is the small matter of their being no democratic majority in favour of such stimulus spending in the EU.", which inherently means you think there is a majority against - so go on then, since you're insistent on clear evidence, give us the evidence of that?Nonsense. Unless there is clear evidence that people favour an idea as demonstrated by their willingness to vote for it, we do not need to go around postulating that there is majority support for any idea (including your favoured ones).
I haven't claimed there is any kind of majority (or not) in either direction. It would be equally incorrect for me to say there is, as it would be to say there is not.
You're just waffling now, to try and feign a substantive reply. It is simple, the actions of parliament/government, does not mean the majority of the population supports each and every action.I refer to Parliament(s) in my posts - not Governments - as it is up to Parliament(s) to figure out "what the people want" means in practise and to both pass legislation accordingly and to hold their government(s) to account for their actions and inactions.
Just because your favoured ideas can't make it past the starting post at the political races, doesn't mean we need to abolish representative democracy and resort to an endless stream of referenda on the minutae of legislation
If you believe your favoured ideas do in fact command majority support there is an election to the European Parliament coming up within a year and one to to Oireachtas in perhaps two year time.
You have plenty of time to get organised for either of those elections. I look forward to you demonstrating the existence of this majority in favour of your policies and will accept the decision of the electorate on this.
Actions are 'representative' as in representative-democracy, yes; actions are inherently agreed with by most of the population, no.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement